Action brought on 16 February 2023 — Angelidis v Parliament

(Case T-49/23)

(2023/C 127/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Angel Angelidis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M. Maes and J.-N. Louis, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the Parliament’s decision of 15 July 2022 relating to a disciplinary penalty;

—	withdraw that decision from the applicant’s personal file;

—	reimburse to the applicant the sums deducted on that basis from his retirement pension, together with default interest as from the date of the first deduction;

—	order the Parliament to pay the applicant compensation of EUR 50 000 for the serious non-material and financial damage caused, including impairment of the peace of the applicant’s family life while at the same time he has to support his wife who suffers from a serious illness;

—	order the Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

First plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 2 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union. The applicant submits that his son, who has reached his majority, was not entrusted to the care of his mother by a competent authority or pursuant to a legislative provision. Therefore, the applicant maintains that the Parliament was required to continue paying him the dependent child allowance.

Second plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 1(a) and (b) of Conclusion No 274/15 of the Heads of Administration. The applicant submits that, pursuant to the abovementioned provisions, the Parliament should have presumed that his son was the subject of actual maintenance, and should not have required proof of actual maintenance.

3.	Third plea in law, alleging infringement of Article 41 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, on the ground that the applicant was not heard before the adoption of the penalty against him and that the Secretary-General of the Parliament showed a manifest lack of impartiality.